UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reginal Marcellius BOYD, Defendant-Appellant, 404 F. App'x 808

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Reginal Marcellius Boyd pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e) (2006). Boyd’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of imprisonment was fifty-seven to seventy-one months’ imprisonment. The district court sentenced Boyd to sixty-five months’ imprisonment. Boyd appeals, claiming the court erred by considering certain conduct prior to imposing sentence.

He has also filed a pro se supplemental brief claiming there was an error in determining his Criminal History Category. We affirm. An appellate court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. This court must assess whether the district court properly calculated the advisory guidelines range, considered the § 3553(

a) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-50, 128 S.Ct. 586; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-76 (4th Cir.2010); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir.2009). If there is no procedural error, the appellate court reviews the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “exam-in[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v.

Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir.2010). If the sentence is within the guidelines range, the court applies a presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering Boyd’s conduct during the commission of the offense in determining the within-guidelines sentence. We further conclude the sentence is reasonable.

In addition, while we grant Boyd’s motion for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief, we find his issue is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED.